The Progressive Response

The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)--a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen movements and agendas." We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/.

We Count on Your Support!

Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Republican Rule Profiles

JOHN BOLTON: ARMS CONTROL & ARMAGEDDON

WALTER KANSTEINER: A CALL FOR OPPOSITION
By Ann-Louise Colgan

II. Updates and Out-Takes

NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA: ROUND TWO
By John Gershman

ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN: A FLASHPOINT ISSUE
By John Gershman

III. Letters and Comments

SHEER HYPOCRISY OF EUROPEANS

RUDE TO ACCUSE BUSH

I. Republican Rule Profiles

(Editor's Note: The evidence keeps rolling in that the Bush presidency is determined to roll back the political climate in this country and around the world. The signals were there even during the campaign, when his essential social and economic conservatism and his America-first politics came through--despite the rhetoric of compassionate conservatism and claims from some that there would be no significant differences between a Gore and a Bush presidency. On the domestic front, the evidence is ample and predictable--tax cuts for the wealthy, budget cuts for social services, and assaults on unionism. On the international front, the policy changes and approaches have been equally alarming. While some core components of American foreign policy--such as its unconscionable support of Israeli repression and racism--stay the course, there are already signs that other aspects of U.S. foreign policy have gone from bad to worse, much worse.

U.S. global leadership appears to be on a reactionary slide with frightening implications--rolling back not just to the Bush Sr. administration but into the deep recesses of Reaganism. At Foreign Policy In Focus, we are doing our best to alert policymakers, the media, and the public--working with other international affairs organizations--about the dangers of the right wing, self-referent thrust of each new foreign policy move and appointment. Part of this response is tracking and opposing the administration's appointments of a string of rogues to manage U.S. foreign policy. In this issue of the Progressive Response, we look at the background and politics of two new rogues: John Bolton and Walter Kansteiner. For more profiles from Bush's Rogues Gallery, see FPIF's Republican Rule webpage: http://www.fpif.org/republicanrule/profiles.html.)

JOHN BOLTON: ARMS CONTROL & ARMAGEDDON

(See entire profile at: http://www.fpif.org/republicanrule/profiles.html.)

Given the appointments to date, the idea that Colin Powell will choose any similarly middle-of-the-road undersecretaries is seriously in doubt. Certainly John R. Bolton, nominated for undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, represents the right wing of the foreign policy establishment.

How right? In January 2001, Jesse Helms endorsed Bolton: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."

Last fall, Bolton, a senior vice president for pubic policy research with the American Enterprise Institute, was spotted in the thick of the battle for the White House. Press photographers snapped him with other Bush stalwarts counting hanging chads in Palm Beach.

Bolton's other battles, at least in recent years, have centered on Taiwan and the United Nations. In a clear break with Washington's long-standing "one-China" policy, Bolton advocates that Taiwan be recognized as an independent state and be given a seat in the United Nations. In 1994, Bolton opened his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee by declaring, "I believe that the United States should support the efforts of the Republic of China on Taiwan to become a full member of the United Nations."

Such views set him apart not only from the Democrats but also from the Bush, Sr. administration. When Senator John Kerry (D-MA) raised the Taiwan issue at Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearings last month, Bolton dissembled, "It's not my function to advocate diplomatic recognition for Taiwan and it would be inappropriate for me to do so."

Yet on the AEI website, Bolton's views remain clearly spelled out. He writes: "diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for... The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy, albeit one the Communist leaders welcome and encourage in the West."

And, according to the Washington Post (April 9, 2001), Bolton is motivated by more than his ultra-right wing ideology. He's also been on the payroll of the Taiwan government. According to the Post, over a period of three years in the 1990s and at the time he was promoting diplomatic recognition of Taiwan before various congressional committees, Bolton was paid a total of $30,000 by the government of Taiwan for "research papers on UN membership issues involving Taiwan." Bolton has denied that his testimony was in any way tied to the fee paid by the Taiwanese.

A Yale-educated lawyer, Bolton has held a variety of posts in both the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations at State, Justice, and USAID. Besides his tenure at the pro-business AEI, Bolton was a senior fellow at the equally right wing Manhattan Institute in 1993.

WALTER KANSTEINER: A CALL FOR OPPOSITION
By Ann-Louise Colgan

(See entire profile at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0104kansteiner.html.)

Walter Kansteiner, Bush's nominee for assistant secretary of state for Africa, was chosen for the post over well-respected foreign service professional Johnny Carson, who currently serves as U.S. ambassador to Kenya. Initial reports on Kansteiner have noted his background as a commodities trader and as an African affairs expert at the State Department and National Security Council during the first Bush administration. In 1991 Kansteiner received the State Department's Distinguished Honor Award for work promoting privatization. During the Clinton years, he worked for the Scowcroft Group, a consulting firm headed by Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser and Kansteiner's former boss in the Bush administration. Kansteiner has written occasional articles on Africa for The Forum for International Policy (http://www.ffip.org/), a center-right Washington think tank where Scowcroft is a resident trustee.

Kansteiner has also strong family ties to the Republican Party. His wife belongs to the prominent Blount family, whose members are major contributors to the Republican Party and owners of Blount International, a large construction and manufacturing firm headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. Kansteiner fits the profile of the majority of the middle-tiered appointees of the Bush administration, described in The Washington Post (March 25, 2001) as having "eclipsed Reagan's in conservatism."

Although some portray the State Department as a haven of moderates in contrast to Pentagon and White House hardliners, Kansteiner's appointment mirrors the appointments of Otto Reich for Latin American affairs at the State Department and of John Negroponte for the position of UN representative. With Kansteiner, Bush is appointing another right-wing ideologue to a key operational position dealing with regional issues. Interestingly, neither Kansteiner's official biography nor news stories to date highlight his ties with the far-right Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD).

Kansteiner's book, published just two years before Nelson Mandela's release from prison, systematically attacks the African National Congress (ANC). Throughout the book, Kansteiner characterizes the ANC as a group of violent revolutionaries engaged in an "unjustified" and "Marxist" struggle against the government, without a mandate from the South African people. While criticizing the apartheid government, he repeatedly refers to the ANC as an "equally foreboding" option for leadership. He describes the ANC movement as illegitimate and undeserving of assistance, while urging each American to "resist the temptation to become (...) a romantic revolutionary supportive of violent revolutionary tactics." Only a few years before the ANC's victory in South Africa's first democratic elections, Kansteiner denounced it as "unrepresentative." There is no public record of his retracting that opinion in deference to the judgment of South African voters who gave the ANC nearly two-thirds of the public vote in the 1994 election (effectively ending political apartheid) and more than two-thirds in the 1999 elections following Mandela's retirement at the end of his term.

There is no indication that Kansteiner has much understanding of or concern for difficult African issues and even less for the global issues (such as debt relief and access to essential AIDS medicines) that affect Africa. In his issue briefs for The Forum for International Policy, he did shed his hard-line ideology in favor of bland advocacy of market promotion, joining the pitch for Africa as a new emerging market. But those who seek enlightened leadership, professional diplomatic experience, and openness to dialogue with African civil society and prodemocracy forces are unlikely to find such qualities in a State Department Africa Bureau under his guidance. The nomination of someone as unsuitable as Kansteiner deserves greater scrutiny and public opposition.

(Ann-Louise Colgan <ann@africapolicy.org> Research Associate, Africa Action--incorporating American Committee on Africa (ACOA), The Africa Fund, Africa Policy Information Center (APIC).)

II. Updates and Out-Takes

(Editor's Note: The immediate lesson from the spy plane crisis is clear: diplomacy works. But U.S.-China relations face a series of diplomatic challenges in the next few weeks. The Bush administration will have to decide what kinds of weapons to sell to Taiwan by the end of April, and it's looking almost certain that the U.S. Congress will have to vote again this summer on renewing China's NTR status--as that status is scheduled to expire on June 3 unless China completes accession to the WTO by that date. Agricultural subsidies and licenses for foreign insurance and telecommunications firms, among other issues, are on the trade agenda. Below are two excerpts from new analysis by FPIF's John Gershman addressing the Taiwan arms sales issue and WTO negotiations. Also see a new FPIF policy brief by Margaret Huang of the RFK Memorial Center for Human Rights on U.S. policy toward human rights violations in China, posted at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n08chinahr.html)

NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA: ROUND TWO
By John Gershman

(Entire commentary is posted at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0104china_ntr.html.)

Almost certainly the U.S. Congress will have to vote again this summer on granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status. Last year's vote granting China NTR status expires on June 3, unless China formally completes accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) before that date--which now seems unlikely.

The last round of WTO accession negotiations ended in January in a stalemate over agricultural subsidies and over the degree to which China will open its services sector (including the insurance industry) to foreign competition. In mid-March, China's Foreign Trade Minister Shi Guangsheng said that China does not expect to complete its accession to the WTO until October or November at the earliest, a view echoed early this week by Supachai Panitchpakdi, who will replace Michael Moore as the WTO's director-general in September 2002. Other observers say there are also still large holes in China's proposed membership terms. WTO accession deals normally cover every aspect of the trade regimes of new members, but China has not yet made commitments regarding two-thirds of the state trading arrangements that govern the Chinese market.

For China, the urgency of speedy accession to the WTO has been somewhat diminished given the recent success of investors in raising capital in domestic and foreign markets. Even prior to the anticipated changes in investment rules that will result from WTO membership, domestic companies are having increasing success in raising capital, climbing the technology ladder, and boosting efficiency to international levels. China has also had success in maintaining high levels of inflows of direct foreign investment. Contractual foreign investment totaled $9.2 billion in the first two months of 2001--up 47% over the same period last year. Actual investment inflows were $4.6 billion--up nearly 25% over last year.

The controversy over agricultural rules has been the most immediate stumbling block to WTO accession. WTO membership will raise import quotas and lower tariffs on a host of key staples, including wheat, corn, and soybeans. With a rural population in China of more than 500 million, the country's leaders fear the possibility that millions of rural workers will be forced into the cities in search of jobs that don't exist. One mechanism to shelter Chinese farmers from the effects of integration could be the increase of agricultural subsidies. Current Chinese domestic support measures amount to about 2% of production, which is far below that of the U.S. and Europe. WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) caps the trade-distorting support (subsidies that depress prices or boost production) at 10% of the value of agricultural production in developing countries. Developed countries can not exceed a 5% cap. Although China has agreed to be bound by standards for developed countries in terms of trade in manufactured goods, it wants to be treated as a developing country in terms of agricultural subsidies.

The U.S. should follow the EU's lead on agriculture, and work to negotiate an accession agreement that recognizes that China is a developing country, and should therefore be granted the room to maneuver that such countries are granted under WTO rules. This is not special treatment, but simply treating China fairly and equitably. A plausible argument can be made that because of the size of China's economy, its competitiveness with major manufacturing sectors found in OECD countries, and the expanding scope of operations by Chinese transnational corporations, it should be treated as a developed country with respect to trade in manufactured goods. In terms of agriculture, however, China fits the profile of a developing country, where the major concerns are productivity and food security. The ongoing negotiations over China's WTO accession provide the Bush administration with a major opportunity to strengthen U.S.-China relations, something even more urgent now in the aftermath of the spy plane crisis. The first step should be to take a more compromising negotiating position on subsidies. This is essential if the U.S. is going to be a credible advocate of adhering to international law and standards as a cornerstone for U.S.-China relations.

The spy plane crisis will be fodder for bipartisan "China-bashing" during the PNTR debate. The Chinese character for crisis means "dangerous opportunity." The Bush administration should seize the opportunity posed by this crisis to begin preparing Congress and the American public now for the need to approve PNTR again for China. Although the Bush administration clearly supports PNTR and WTO accession for China, it needs to head off a repeat of last year's fight on Capitol Hill that will only serve to aggravate the already tense state of U.S.-China relations.

(John Gershman <john@irc-online.org> is FPIF's Asia-Pacific editor and the codirector of the Global Affairs Program at the Interhemispheric Resource Center.)

ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN: A FLASHPOINT ISSUE
By John Gershman

(Entire commentary posted at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0103taiwan.html.)

China has always seen Taiwan as the central issue in its relations with America. At present, China is engaged in a diplomatic campaign to stop U.S. sales to Taiwan of advanced weapons systems, notably destroyers equipped with the Aegis battle-management radar system and upgraded Patriot antimissile systems. Washington is obliged by U.S. law to sell Taiwan sufficient weapons to defend itself, but what that actually entails is up for debate. Acquiring the warships would be a significant diplomatic and military coup for Taiwan. During the Clinton years, Washington declined or deferred Taiwanese requests for submarines and destroyers for fear of provoking China and an arms race.

The recent Bush-Qian meeting came on the heels of recent efforts by Senate Republicans to strengthen U.S.-Taiwan military ties and a more confrontational posture toward China by the Bush administration. A report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released earlier this month advocated selling Taiwan the Aegis-equipped destroyers and other advanced weaponry, and argued that continuing the current U.S. policy toward the island would "guarantee" Taiwan's destruction. The report advocates that direct communications be established between the militaries of Taiwan and the United States--establishing a de facto military alliance between the U.S. and Taiwan.

In line with its increasingly confrontational stance toward China, the Bush administration has retreated from the Clinton administration's policy regarding Taiwan. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that, while the U.S. adheres to the "one China policy," the Bush administration does not necessarily follow Clinton's principles known as the "three noes." During a 1998 trip to China, Clinton made clear his support for the three noes policy by saying: "We don't support independence for Taiwan; or 'two Chinas' or 'one Taiwan, one China'; and we don't believe that Taiwan should be a member in any organization for which statehood is a requirement."

The Bush administration has created ambiguity in its Taiwan policy by not specifying what type of military systems it will allow Taiwan to purchase. Similarly, the new administration has not yet clarified Taiwan's projected role in the proposed theater missile defense system. By declining to endorse the three noes policy, the Bush administration provides encouragement for both military hardliners in China and independence advocates in Taiwan.

(John Gershman <john@irc-online.org> is FPIF's Asia-Pacific editor and the codirector of the Global Affairs Program at the Interhemispheric Resource Center.)

III. Letters and Comments

SHEER HYPOCRISY OF EUROPEANS

For the past ten years during climate change negotiations, European governments have been blaming successive American governments for refusing to do this, that, and the other about the environment when they have had no intention of making any changes themselves. Their criticisms about George Bush are sheer hypocrisy.

For example, Britain covers only 1.4% of its carbon emissions through forests--so is it surprising the British government is doing all that it can to prevent forests from being taken into account.

I've enclosed a short snippet from a Carbonomics article which can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCsppub/11sp24b_f.html#Intro:

The British and the Europeans are becoming Bigger and Bigger Earth-wreckers in comparison to the Americans. In the early 1990s the Europeans tried to keep the climate negotiation process focused on a single greenhouse gas because America was the biggest emitter of CO2 and this ensured that America attracted global criticisms for its contribution to the greenhouse effect. European countries were also big emitters of CO2 but they were far behind their American counterparts. When methane was included as a designated greenhouse gas, the Americans remained at the top of the league table of greenhouse culprits but the gap between them and European countries was reduced considerably. The same happened when CFCs were also included. America was no longer looking like the clear-cut culprit for emissions of specific greenhouse gases.

- John Lynch <carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk>

RUDE TO ACCUSE BUSH

I think Mr. Zunes has gone too far to accuse the Bush administration in "UN Veto Reveals Bush Administration's Contempt for Human Rights" [posted at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0104veto.html] of having "contempt" for human rights. I am not a Republican myself, but the United States, including Republicans, has always deemed human rights to be an issue of great importance. It is rude to accuse the administration of something so absurd and drastic without proof that they purposely vetoed the bill to degrade human rights.

- Angelica <MetFreak3@aol.com>

NOTICE: The Progressive Response will no longer be including the occasional section called Self-Determination Crisis Watch. FPIF has launched a new listserv by the same name. If you would like to subscribe to this listserv, which will cover ethnopolitical and other intrastate conflicts, please send a blank email to majordomo@fpif.org, with the message "subscribe selfdeterminationlistserv" in the body of the email.

Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new kind of think tank--one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh, internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.

We Count on Your Support. Thank you.

Subscribe to The Progressive Response!

To subscribe to The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:

To unsubscribe from The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
lists-unsubscribe@irc-online.org

Simply click the appropriate hyperlink above, or send a blank email to the appropriate email address above.

The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies.

Please consider taking our online users' survey by going to: http://www.fpif.org/form_survey.html.

We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to irc@irc-online.org. Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive.

IRC
Tom Barry
Editor, Progressive Response
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: tom@irc-online.org

IPS
Martha Honey
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: ipsps@igc.apc.org

This page was last modified on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:00 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.